![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Why is the old edition's index notable? There is no secondary sourcing for this index, which has been abandoned by the new edition of the NP.
In fact, the old index is not maintained by the NP's online site: At least I could not use it! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
1T. Those who find the 2008 NP use of JEL classification codes of interest might find similarly so the "Subject Index" (next subsection below) of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987). Indeed they might find it thought-provoking in its own terms and by comparison to the JEL codes. Surely it is the most well-articulated alternative alternative to the JEL codes.
2T. The full-text NP 1987 is only accessible by subscription. That might make partial inclusion of the "Subject Index" here of further interest.
3T. There may be reason to question whether the NP 1987 "Subject Index" is also a classification system. It is, by inspection of the section below, and is so identified by John K. Whitaker, 1989, "Palgrave Resurrected: A Review Article," Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), pp. 480-496 at p. 482:
The "Subject Index" is also referenced in:
So, it seems to pass the notability test. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
In the present edition, articles are classified according to the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification codes.
In the old edition, the JEL codes were not used. Instead, the entries were partitioned into its "Subject Index (sub)classifications".
Fringe science and WP:FRINGE is something that "significantly departs" from the mainstream and has no "scholarly opinion ... [in] the mainstream view." In the case of academic economics, Solow has the heterodoxs "within" academia, albeit on the fringe. But the key words are "scholarly opinion" and "within". Labeling the heterodoxs as fringe science uses a twisted, POV logic. It says 1. Fringe science is outside the mainstream of science. 2. Heterodoxs are outside the mainstream of economics. 3. Therefore heterodox economics are fringe science. (This line of reasoning fails because it makes no distinction as to inside or outside the mainstream.) In the alternative, the logic is 1. Heterodoxs are on the fringe of economic academia. (It does not matter if they are inside the fringe or outside.) 2. Fringe science is on the fringe of scientific academia (and outside by definition). 2. With both fringe science and the heterodoxs, it is appropriate to call them "fringe". 3. Because they are called "fringe", it is appropriate to call heterodoxs "fringe science". (Again the logic fails because of the lack of distinction between inside or outside.) Adding "fringe science" wikilinks, even as a see also, is a POV slur on the heterodoxs.-- S. Rich ( talk) 17:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am hardly an economics student, so the little edit spat over technical and mathematical economics seems quite abstruse. The list of subjects and authors for Palgrave [1] shows "mathematical economics" as a subject and we have a mathematical economics article. We do not have "technical economics" or "contemporary economics" in either Palgrave or WP. How can you guys/gals make this more helpful to the readers? -- S. Rich ( talk) 06:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Stigler uses "technical economics" for "mathematical economics" (and perhaps fads?....), when he complains that the New Palgrave ignores empirical economics, including data, summary statistics, econometric theory and investigations, etc.
It seems that venial economists write "technical economics" when they should mean "mathematical economics" and honest economists write "technical economics" sometimes as an alternative to "mathematical economics". Kiefer. Wolfowitz 13:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Why is the old edition's index notable? There is no secondary sourcing for this index, which has been abandoned by the new edition of the NP.
In fact, the old index is not maintained by the NP's online site: At least I could not use it! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
1T. Those who find the 2008 NP use of JEL classification codes of interest might find similarly so the "Subject Index" (next subsection below) of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987). Indeed they might find it thought-provoking in its own terms and by comparison to the JEL codes. Surely it is the most well-articulated alternative alternative to the JEL codes.
2T. The full-text NP 1987 is only accessible by subscription. That might make partial inclusion of the "Subject Index" here of further interest.
3T. There may be reason to question whether the NP 1987 "Subject Index" is also a classification system. It is, by inspection of the section below, and is so identified by John K. Whitaker, 1989, "Palgrave Resurrected: A Review Article," Journal of Political Economy, 97(2), pp. 480-496 at p. 482:
The "Subject Index" is also referenced in:
So, it seems to pass the notability test. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
In the present edition, articles are classified according to the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification codes.
In the old edition, the JEL codes were not used. Instead, the entries were partitioned into its "Subject Index (sub)classifications".
Fringe science and WP:FRINGE is something that "significantly departs" from the mainstream and has no "scholarly opinion ... [in] the mainstream view." In the case of academic economics, Solow has the heterodoxs "within" academia, albeit on the fringe. But the key words are "scholarly opinion" and "within". Labeling the heterodoxs as fringe science uses a twisted, POV logic. It says 1. Fringe science is outside the mainstream of science. 2. Heterodoxs are outside the mainstream of economics. 3. Therefore heterodox economics are fringe science. (This line of reasoning fails because it makes no distinction as to inside or outside the mainstream.) In the alternative, the logic is 1. Heterodoxs are on the fringe of economic academia. (It does not matter if they are inside the fringe or outside.) 2. Fringe science is on the fringe of scientific academia (and outside by definition). 2. With both fringe science and the heterodoxs, it is appropriate to call them "fringe". 3. Because they are called "fringe", it is appropriate to call heterodoxs "fringe science". (Again the logic fails because of the lack of distinction between inside or outside.) Adding "fringe science" wikilinks, even as a see also, is a POV slur on the heterodoxs.-- S. Rich ( talk) 17:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am hardly an economics student, so the little edit spat over technical and mathematical economics seems quite abstruse. The list of subjects and authors for Palgrave [1] shows "mathematical economics" as a subject and we have a mathematical economics article. We do not have "technical economics" or "contemporary economics" in either Palgrave or WP. How can you guys/gals make this more helpful to the readers? -- S. Rich ( talk) 06:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Stigler uses "technical economics" for "mathematical economics" (and perhaps fads?....), when he complains that the New Palgrave ignores empirical economics, including data, summary statistics, econometric theory and investigations, etc.
It seems that venial economists write "technical economics" when they should mean "mathematical economics" and honest economists write "technical economics" sometimes as an alternative to "mathematical economics". Kiefer. Wolfowitz 13:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)